I bought a Timex Ironman HR monitor. My thinking was that I'd use it when I was using my sled. I'd get my HR up to 160. Stop. Let it get to 130 and then start up again.

Apparently HR monitors are not made for North American skunk apes. I have, at best, intermitent heart beats according to the monitor. Apparently it doesn't pick up too well through thick skunk ape body hair.

Isn't that the point of background checks. Licensing would only create a public record of gun owners. It would be like a big kick-me sign for gun thieves. It would also make it easier for the government to confiscate firearms at a later date.

Also, it shouldn't be my responsibility to prove I'm "okay." Rather, the burden should be on the government to prove I'm a danger before infringing on my rights.

You didn't read the whole post did you? Like I said there are ways to get guns WITHOUT background checks, I would stop that. Licensing would also be for the additional special privileges I listed. Did you not notice the additional stuff that would be granted to such people?I said gun theft and using stolen guns would be a federal crime. Government is not allowed to confiscate firearms. When you take the 9th, 14th, and 5th amendment into consideration, they can't do a damn thing to you.

Yea, like I said you get a license to prove you can handle it, that is your responsibility. That would eliminate the need for wait times, running checks during the sale, limits, etc. So you prove yourself, then you can can do whatever you want. The idea is that certain people who can't handle it don't get those rights, and responsible adults don't have to deal with any BS.

Quote:

A) The National Guard is nothing like a colonial militia.B) The 2nd Amendment never says you have to be a member of a militia to keep and bear arms. In fact, militias were formed as-needed and often disbanded in peacetime.C) The only reason militias are even mension is that colonial militiamen provided their own weapons. Hence you couldn't have a militia without private gun ownership.

A) Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903B) It kind of does actually. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Again, irrelevant in light of the 9th amendment though.C) Only reason? That is definitive of militias and the reason they made the amendment. Not that you need that to have guns. Because of the 9th amendment the government can't just say you don't have a right to X, Y and Z because it's not specifically mentioned. People typically always had guns, therefore they can't take that away.

Quote:

If the government proposes to limit personal freedoms (especially a constitutionally protected right), then the burden is on the government to justify such actions.

Yea, of course, amendments 5, 9, and 14. That's not what I was talking about though. I was saying that changing the gun laws have no effect on crime. Those arguments are made from all sides of the debate, but they are all wrong.

STOP the topicness! MODS - I REQUEST DELETE ANY GUN CONTROL COMMENT FROM NOW ON IN THIS THREAD - WHETHER FOR OR AGAINST!

Randomness folks! R-A-N-D-O-M

It will die out pretty soon. Everyone should get the chance to at least state their views on the topic. Matt's was the only true response to any points. Then my last one was sort of, but not really. I refuted a couple points Matt made, but mostly I just restated points where he just had the wrong idea about what I was saying. Plus it's barely a debate when you agree on the main point.

Really my main overarching idea is that responsible adults should not be inconvenienced to coddle idiots. If your kids have a toy that requires safety and responsible use, if they break the rules, you take it away right? Then they can have it back when they can play with it responsibly.

This actually proves my point. Colonial militias were made up of civilians who provided their own arms and were free to leave at any time. The National Guard is a branch of the federal armed forces, armed and funded by the federal government.

I don't have a problem with requiring background checks for private sales (some states already do). However, there should probably be some kind of exemption for inheritance. Otherwise, the death of a gun owner could create legal problems for his/her heirs.

Licencing could create similar problems. The unlicenced relatives of a dead gun owner might be forced to immediately turn in his/her firearms or risk prosecution on possession charges.

Firearms licences could also become prohibitively expensive or difficult to aquire. In the long run this could reduce firearms ownership, weakening the pro-gun position.

A car isn't a toy either. Driving is a big responsibility, and even experienced, responsible drivers can make mistakes, but no one wants to ban cars.

A car is very useful and is designed to transfer people or things from one location to another. Comparing guns to cars is beyond apples to oranges. Although I will say that you could probably kill a lot more people with a truck or SUV than with a gun. Still, that is not its designed purpose.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum